Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophical Dimensions of Social and Ethical Issues in School Science Education: Values in Science and in Science Classrooms

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Abstract

Philosophical debates on the nature and significance of values in scientific knowledge and practices have differentiated cognitive (or epistemic) values from noncognitive (non-epistemic, such as moral or political) ones. The significance of cognitive values has come to be more or less commonly accepted, but the place of noncognitive values is much more controversial. Analysis and debate on values-related dimensions of scientific knowledge and inquiry has been on the rise in contemporary philosophy of science since 1970. This chapter provides an overview of some current philosophical work on the subject and its possible impact on school science education.

First, a sample of these philosophical stances is presented, with emphasis on three different authors who recognise the role of non-epistemic values in scientific activity, without necessarily relinquishing a place for objectivity. Then, some of the rationales for including teaching about values in science education are addressed. The science education and philosophy education research is deployed to sketch some issues that would have to be taken into consideration when introducing one particular type of values – ethics related issues – in the secondary education classroom.

Finally, the desirability of a greater interaction among science and philosophy educators is emphasised. Mutual knowledge of the convergences and divergences in approach to values in scientific knowledge and practices, and the challenges posed by teaching about them, can lead to richer and more nuanced approaches to the common aspects in their respective topics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 749.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 949.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I would like to thank John Forge for his helpful suggestions on this paragraph and successive references to this point.

  2. 2.

    For an interesting example, see the discussion on the Manhattan Project and especially on Frédéric Joliot-Curie’s refusal to join the moratorium in publishing results on neutron multiplication in an assembly of heavy water, in 1939 (Forge 2008, pp. 72–76).

  3. 3.

    AAAS (1993), Conseil de l’Education et de la Formation (1999), National Research Council (1996), and OECD (2001)

  4. 4.

    Argentina, Brazil, (French-speaking) Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Spain, Uruguay, etc. (UNESCO 2007).

  5. 5.

    Usually, English-speaking countries such as Australia, (English-speaking) Canada, the USA and the UK.

  6. 6.

    See, for instance, Sadler and Zeidler (2006), Zeidler and Sadler (2008), Zemplén (2009), also Kutrovátz and Zemplén (2014), Vesterinen, Manassero-Mas and Vázquez-Alonso (2014).

  7. 7.

    For example, Davson-Galle (2002), Lacey (1999b, 2009), Machamer and Douglas (1999), Matthews (2009a).

  8. 8.

    Douglas (2000), Dupré et al. (2007), Echeverría (1995), Kitcher (1993, 2001), Lacey (1999), Laudan (1984), Longino (1990, 2011)

  9. 9.

    Throughout this paper we will take “cognitive” and “epistemic” as synonymous.

  10. 10.

    I take SSI to refer to issues based on scientific results or practices that have an actual or potential relevant impact on society (Ratcliffe and Grace 2003). They may be considered either from the (frequently descriptive and explanatory) social sciences point of view (sociology, economy, anthropology, some theories of psychology, etc.) or from a philosophical (usually normative) standpoint (ethics, political philosophy, philosophical anthropology, aesthetics, etc.).

  11. 11.

    Given that the emphasis is on a general overview of the issue and on the way science education in schools may address it, some philosophical depth will be inevitably lost. Interested readers can find that depth in many of the books mentioned in the references list.

  12. 12.

    Many Platonic dialogues contemplate the nature and scope of specific values such as justice (first book of Republic), beauty (Greater Hippias, Phaedrus) or piety (Euthyphro).

  13. 13.

    Research on the safety of a new drug, for instance, may result in a false negative, with dangerous consequences for future users (see Douglas 2007, for an interesting example).

  14. 14.

    There were also “technical” norms, pertaining to reliable empirical evidence and logical consistency.

  15. 15.

    Emotional commitment, particularism, solitariness, interestedness and organised dogmatism (Mitroff 1974, p. 592).

  16. 16.

    Lacey (1999) states that personal values may be manifested in behavior, woven into a life, expressed in a practice, present in consciousness, articulated in words and embodied in social institutions and in society (pp. 25–6). Social values are manifested in the programmes, laws and policies of a society; expressed in its practices; articulated in histories, traditions and institutions; woven into a society when they are manifested constantly and consistently; and can be personalised when persons act on behalf of a society where particular values are embodied (pp. 28–9).

  17. 17.

    Kitcher (1993), Lacey (1999), Longino (1990), Machamer and Douglas (1999), and Wylie and Nelson (2007)

  18. 18.

    Space precludes discussion of this position here. For a survey of the relevant arguments, the reader is referred to Doppelt (2008), Haack (1993), Laudan (1984), and McMullin (1982, 2008). The very distinction between epistemic–non-epistemic values has been discussed at least since Rooney (1992).

  19. 19.

    There are many interesting approaches to this problem in the recent literature in philosophy of science. Because it would have been impossible to address even a representative selection, three have been selected as a first approach to the range of views expressed. See Doppelt (2008); the papers in Dupré et al. (2007), Kitcher (2001), and Laudan (1984). Also, Douglas (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal, University of Pittsburgh Press, and Machamer and Wolters (2004) Science, Values and Objectivity, University of Pittsburgh Press.

  20. 20.

    “…la comunicabilidad de los contenidos científicos a cualquier ser humano; de este se deriva la exigencia de publicidad”

  21. 21.

    See Kutrovátz and Zemplén (Chap. 34), and Vesterinen, Manassero-Mas and Vázquez-Alonso (Chap. 58), for a discussion on research in sociology of science and science education and of STS and HPS traditions in science education. Also, Aikenhead (2006), Hodson (2011), and Pedretti et al. (2008).

  22. 22.

    For the sake of concision, we will refer to methodological naturalism as claiming that natural entities and means only can be called upon in scientific knowledge and practices and that natural sciences are a paradigm of epistemic research. This does not exclude by itself the existence of supernatural beings. Ontological naturalism states that only natural entities exist as a content of reality and no supernatural explanations whatsoever are acceptable. Irzik and Nola (2009, p. 733) point out that in some versions of naturalism, mentalistic and even mathematics items can be legitimately involved, since “natural” not necessarily implies “physical”. Finally, materialism or physicalism affirms that only material (i.e. physical) entities exist.

  23. 23.

    See his outline of three meta-ethical questions for an example of how complicated this can become.

  24. 24.

    Jones et al. (2010), Ratcliffe and Grace (2003), Zeidler and Sadler (2008), Sadler and Zeidler (2006), Zeidler and Keefer (2003), Zemplén (2009), also Kutrovátz and Zemplén (2014).

  25. 25.

    Adúriz-Bravo (2005b), Osborne et al. (2003), and Lederman et al. (2002)

  26. 26.

    Among others, AAAS (1993), McComas and Olson (2002), Conseil de l’Education et de la Formation (1999), National Research Council (1996), OECD (2001), Consejo Federal de Cultura y Educación (2006), and Secretaria de Educação Básica Brasília (2006).

  27. 27.

    For a first approach to the philosophical problems posed by the notion of tolerance, see Forst, R. (2012), Toleration, In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition, forthcoming). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/toleration/.

  28. 28.

    See also Ratcliffe and Grace (2003) (pp. 21–24 & pp. 29–32) for related questions in environmental education.

  29. 29.

    See Diotime (on-line magazine on the teaching of philosophy, in French) and Paideia (the magazine of the Spanish Association of Philosophy Teachers). In English, Teaching Philosophy devoted to the discussion of the teaching and learning of philosophy since 1975. Also the American Philosophical Association publishes an on-line Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy. UNESCO (2007) has put together a comprehensive study of the status of the teaching of philosophy in the world. Recently a new series of regional documents expanding on the data presented in the 2007 study have been published. http://unesdoc.unesco.org.

  30. 30.

    See Kasachkoff (2005) for an example of how a class of ethics may proceed. Items in the APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy (free on-line access) outline other approaches to ethics teaching. For a perspective on moral education from a theory of care point of view, see Noddings and Slote (2003).

  31. 31.

    See Forge (1998, 2008) for a discussion of the issue of responsibility with regard to scientists and science practice.

  32. 32.

    Zeidler (2003), Simmoneaux (2008), Zeidler and Sadler (2008), and Zohar (2008)

  33. 33.

    Adúriz-Bravo and Revel Chion (2005), Adúriz-Bravo (2014), contributions to Erduran and Jiménez Aleixandre (2008), and Matthews (2009b)

References

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2014) Revisiting School Scientific Argumentation from the Perspective of the History and Philosophy of Science. In Matthews, M. R. (ed.) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2005a). Una introducción a la naturaleza de la ciencia: la epistemología en la enseñanza de las ciencias naturales. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2005b). Methodology and politics: A proposal to teach the structuring ideas of the philosophy of science through the pendulum. In M.R. Matthews, C.F. Gauld & A. Stinner (eds.) (2005). The pendulum: Scientific, historical, philosophical and educational perspectives (pp. 277–291) Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2001). Integración de la epistemología en la formación del profesorado de ciencias. Tesis de doctorado. Departament de Didàctica de les Matemàtiques i de les Ciències Experimentals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. & Izquierdo-Aymerich, M. (2005). A research-informed instructional unit to teach the nature of science to pre-service science teachers. Science & Education 18, 1177–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adúriz-Bravo, A. & Revel Chion, A. (2005). Sharing assessment criteria on school scientific argumentation with secondary science students. In R. Pintó & D. Couso (eds), Proceedings of the fifth international ESERA conference on contributions of research to enhancing students’ interest in learning science (pp. 589–592). Barcelona: ESERA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life – Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education 8, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, Oxford University Press On line at http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php. Last retrieved December 2012

  • Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth and logic. New York: Dover (Trad. esp. (1971) Lenguaje verdad y lógica. Bs.As.: Eudeba).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education 87, 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrier, M. (2012). Values and objectivity in science: value-ladenness, pluralism and the epistemic attitude. Science & Education, doi 10.1007/s11191-012-9481-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto Forum 25. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm. Last retrieved September 2011.

  • Conseil de l’Education et de la Formation (1999). Education scientifique, education citoyenne. Réaliser une alphabétisation scientifique et technologique, composante essentielle de l’éducation à la citoyenneté démocratique. Avis n°67, Conseil du Septembre 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Consejo Federal de Cultura y Educación (2006). Núcleos de aprendizaje prioritarios. 3er Ciclo EGB / Nivel Medio. Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología. República Argentina http://portal.educacion.gov.ar/secundaria/files/2009/12/nap3natura.pdf

  • Conner, L. (2010). In the classroom: Approaches to Bioethics for senior students. In A. Jones, A. McKim & M. Reiss (eds.), Ethics in the science and technology classroom. (pp. 55–67). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero, A. (2009). Contemporary science and worldview-making. Science & Education 18, 747–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R. T. (1999). Scientific understanding: Lacey’s “critical self-consciousness” seen as echoes of J.D. Bernal. Science & Education 8(1), 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosthwaite, J. (2001). Teaching ethics and technology – What is required? Science & Education 10, 97–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davson-Galle, P. (2002). Science, values and objectivity. Science & Education 11, 191–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, G. (2008). Values in science. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (eds.), The Routledge companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 302–313). Taylor & Francis e-Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67 (4), 559–579 Retrieved at http://www.jstor.org/stable/188707.

  • Douglas, H. (2007). Rejecting the ideal of value-free science. In J. Dupré, H. Kincaid & A. Wylie (eds.) Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions (pp. 120–139). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J.; Kincaid, H. & Wylie, A. (ed.) (2007) Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverría, J. (1995). Filosofía de la ciencia. Madrid: Akal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echeverría, J. (2008). Propuestas para una filosofía de las prácticas científicas. In J.M. Esteban & S.F. Martínez Muñoz (eds.), Normas y prácticas en la ciencia (pp. 129–149). México: IIFs-UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. & Jiménez Aleixandre, P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives form classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrater Mora, J. (1975). Diccionario de filosofía. Bs.As.: Sudamericana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo Salvi, R. & Batista, I.L. (2008). A análise dos valores na educação científica: contribuições para uma aproximação da filosofia da ciência com pressupostos da aprendizagem significativa. Experiências em Ensino de Ciências 3(1), 43–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, Y.I. (2009). Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education 18, 813–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forge, J. (1998). Responsibility and the scientist. In. Bridgstock, D. Burch, J. Forge, J. Laurent & I. Lowe (eds.), Science, technology and society. An introduction (pp. 40–55). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forge, J. (2008). The responsible scientist. Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forst, R. (2012), Toleration, In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition, forthcoming). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/toleration/

  • Frondizi, R. (1982). ¿Qué son los valores? México: FCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauch Jr., H.G. (2009). Science, worldviews and education. Science & Education 18, 667–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillam, L. (2009). Teaching ethics in the health professions. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (eds.), A companion to bioethics (pp. 584–593). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (2003, f.e.1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Trad. esp. (1985) La moral y la teoría México: FCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Govier, T. (2010) A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M. (2006). Teaching citizenship through science: Socio-scientific issues as an important component of citizenship. Prospero, 12 (3), 42–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, M. (2009). Ethics education and the practice of wisdom. Teaching Ethics 9 (2):105–130. On line at www.uvu.edu/ethics/seac/Gregory%20%20Ethics%20Education%20and%20the%20Practice%20of%20Wisdom.pdf Last retrieved June 2012.

  • Gutmann, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (1993). Epistemological reflections of an old feminist Reason Papers 18, 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson D. (2011). Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. & Nola, R. (2009). Worldviews and their relation to science. Science & Education 18, 729–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A., McKim, A. & Reiss, M. (eds.) (2010). Ethics in the science and technology classroom. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasachkoff, T. (2005). How one might use “two lives” in the ethics classroom. APA Newsletter on Teaching Philosophy. 5 (2), 2–3 On line at http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/Publications/Newsletters/Past_Newsletters/Vol05/Vol._05_Fall_2005_Spring_2006_aspx Last retrieved June 2012.

  • Kitcher, P. (1993) The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford : Oxford University Press (Trad. Esp. (2001) El avance de la ciencia. Ciencia sin leyenda, objetividad sin ilusiones. México DF: UNAM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2006). Biology and ethics. In D. Copp (ed.), The Oxford handbook of ethical theory. (pp. 163–185). Oxford : Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohan, W. (2005). Brésil: regard critique sur la méthode Lipman (II). Diotime, 24. On line at http://www.educ-revues.fr/Diotime/affichagedocument.aspx?iddoc=32659&pos=0 Last retrieved May 2012

  • Kohlberg, L. & Gilligan, C. (1971). The adolescent as a philosopher: the discovery of the self in a postconventional world. Dedalus, 100 (4), 1051–1086.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1992) Psicología del desarrollo moral. Bilbao, Desclée de Brouwer. English version (1984) Essays on moral development. Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17 (8–9), 977–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Trad.esp. (1971) La estructura de las revoluciones científicas, México: F.C.E.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Trad.esp. (1993) La tensión esencial, México: F.C.E.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutrovátz, G. & Zemplén, G. (2014) Social Studies of Science and Science Teaching. In Matthews, M. R. (ed.) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (1999). Is science value free? Values and scientific understanding. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (1999b). Scientific understanding and the control of nature, Science & Education 8(1), 13–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (2005). On the interplay of the cognitive and the social in scientific practices. Philosophy of Science, 72, 977–988 (Trad. Port. (2008) Aspectos cognitivos e sociais das práticas científicas. Scientiæ Studia, São Paulo 6 (1), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, H. (2009). The interplay of scientific activity, worldviews and value outlooks. Science & Education, 18 (6–7) 839–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, M. G. (2010). Of pigs and men: Understanding student’s reasoning about the use of pigs as donors for xenotransplantation. Science & Education, 19 (9) 867–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2011). The social dimensions of scientific knowledge. In E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2011 edit.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/>. Last retrieved March 2012.

  • Luna F. (2009). Elucidating the concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 2 (1), 120–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P. & Douglas, H. (1999). Cognitive and social values. Science & Education, 8 (1), 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer and Wolters (2004) Science, Values and Objectivity. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P., Pera, M. & Baltas, A. (eds) (2000). Scientific controversies: Philosophical and historical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (1994/2014). Science teaching. The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (2009a). Science and worldviews in the classroom: Joseph Priestley and photosynthesis. Science & Education, 18 (6–7), 929–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M.R. (2009b). Teaching the philosophical and worldviews components of science. Science & Education, 18 (6–7) 697–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (ed) (2002). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer (first edition 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W.F. & Olson, J.K. (2002). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W.F. McComas (ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McKim, A. (2010). Bioethics education. In Jones, A., McKim A. & Reiss, M. (eds.), Ethics in the science and technology classroom (pp. 19–36). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, E. (1982). Values in science. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Vol 2: Symposia and Invited Papers, pp. 3–28. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/192309. Last accessed November 2011

  • McMullin, E. (2008). The virtues of a good theory. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science (pp. 498–508). Taylor & Francis e-Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff, I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 579–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. H. (2002). Feminist philosophy of science. In P. Machamer & M. Silberstein (eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of science (pp. 312–331). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. & Slote, M. (2003). Changing notions of the moral and of moral education. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith & P. Standish, P. (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education (pp. 341–355). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, C. (1994). Réflexions sur l’enseignement de l’éthique. Philosopher 16, 63–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1948). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Trad. Esp. (1935) El juicio moral en el niño. Madrid: Francisco Beltrán Librería española y extranjera.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Romkey, L. & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education, 17, 941–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1990). Realism with a human face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabossi, E. (2008). En el comienzo Dios creó el Canon. Biblia berolinensis. Bs.As.: Gedisa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. (2008). The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16–18 year-olds. Science & Education 17, 889–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. (2009). Imagining the world: The significance of religious worldviews for science education. Science & Education 18, 783–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. (2010). Ethical thinking. In A. Jones, A. McKim & M, Reiss (eds.), Ethics in the science and technology classroom (pp. 7–17). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. (1985). The strife of systems. An essay on the grounds and implications of philosophical diversity. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press (trad. esp. (1995) La lucha de los sistemas. México: UNAM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B.E. (2009). The moral status of animals and their use as experimental subjects. In H. Kuhse & P. Singer (eds.), A companion to bioethics (pp. 495–509). Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B.E. (2012). The perfect storm - Genetic engineering, science and ethics. Science & Education, 1–9, doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9511-3. Last accessed November 2012

  • Rooney, Ph. (1992). On values in science: is the epistemic/non-epistemic distinction useful? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Volume One: Contributed Papers (pp. 13–22) The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/192740. Last accessed December 2012

  • Rudner, R. (1953). The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philosophy of Science. 20(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. & Wilson, E.O. (2006, origin. pub. 1983). Moral philosophy as applied science. In E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual issues in evolutionary theory, (pp. 555–573). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. & Zeidler, D. (2006). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secretaria de Educação Básica. Brasília Ministério da Educação (2006). Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio. Vol. 2: Ciências da Natureza, Matemática e suas Tecnologias. URL: http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/arquivos/pdf/book_volume_02_internet.pdf

  • Simmoneaux, L (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.) Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, C. (1960). Ethics and language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Trad. esp. de E. Rabossi (1971) Ética y lenguaje Bs.As.: Paidós.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2007). La Philosophie, une École de la Liberté. Enseignement de la philosophie et apprentissage du philosopher : État des lieux et regards pour l’avenir. Trans. in English as Philosophy, a School of Freedom. Teaching Philosophy and learning to philosophize: Status and Prospects. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001536/153601f.pdf (Fr) or http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001541/154173e.pdf (Eng). Accessed April 2012.

  • Vesterinen, V.-M., Manassero-Mas, M.A. & Vázquez-Alonso, A. (2014) History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science and Science-Technology-Society Traditions in Science Education: Continuities and Discontinuities. In Matthews, M. R. (ed.) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. & Nelson, L. (2007). Coming to terms with the values of science: Insights from feminist science studies scholarship. In J. Dupré, H. Kincaid & A. Wylie (eds.), Value-free science? Ideals and illusions (pp. 58–86). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. (ed.) (2003) The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education. In D. Zeidler (ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. & Sadler, T. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education. Science & Education 17, 8–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemplén, G. (2009). Putting sociology first. Reconsidering the role of the social in “nature of science” education. Science & Education 18 (5), 525–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (2003). Real science. What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Virtual Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in science education. (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

 The author would like to acknowledge the support of Universidad de Buenos Aires and Programa UBACYT – Programa para el Mejoramiento de la Enseñanza de la Filosofía, UBACYT 01/W518. Also, she wants to extend her appreciation for helpful suggestions and comments to all Science & Education reviewers of this paper and to Cristina González of Universidad de Buenos Aires.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Filosofía – CEFIEC, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Ana C. Couló

Authors
  1. Ana C. Couló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana C. Couló .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Couló, A.C. (2014). Philosophical Dimensions of Social and Ethical Issues in School Science Education: Values in Science and in Science Classrooms. In: Matthews, M. (eds) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_33

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation